Conference – a view from outside Liverpool

The 2011 Party Conference season is giving me déjà vu.

Watching Labour from outside Liverpool, through the prism of media, blog and twitter coverage – to be fair – there was a lot to be happy about.

Keynote speeches received a lot of airtime and the key message punched through, particularly Balls on fiscal discipline (which coincided nicely with the Fabian publication “The Credibility Deficit”), Cooper on police bravery and reform, and Ed Miliband on ‘I’m my own man’.

The fight against the (perception at least) of a lurch to the left is going well. Ed M is speaking more passionately and more confidently. I believe he’s having speech training. That was a good idea, which is paying off. Ken also made some noise, that punched through to national media, on transport fares. And he dovetailed nicely with a simultaneous SMS campaign.

Ed’s main message, around ethics in markets and not-business as usual, needs a bit more work to stick in the minds of the man on the Clapham omnibus. But I think it could resonate well. I’d caution though, that just “being against business as usual” only works when you explain quite a bit of context.

On the down side, there were a lot of blogs and tweets pointing to the party being in lemming mode. There is a body of opinion that is frustrated by a sense that we know we have an unelectable leader and we are not landing the blows against the coalition, but that we are happy to stick our heads in the sand and keep congratulating ourselves. From outside of Liverpool, I picked up quite a bit of this sentiment.

But what do I mean by déjà vu?

It was the summer and autumn of 2008 when the credit crunch turbulence escalated into a full-blown financial and economic crisis. It came to a head around the time of the Party Conference season. In 2011, the Labour leadership speeches were ok. There were no big fails. But the Labour conference seemed slightly blind to the fact that the global economy is standing on a knife edge, in a similar position to where we were in the Autumn of 2008. Failure to reach a solution to the eurocrisis will affect all our lives in a very bad way for a long time to come. It will be a source of economic malaise and deprivation and, who knows, potentially a source of conflict.

In 2008, Cameron – in opposition – grasped the severity of the 2008 financial crisis and ripped up all the main speeches (and conference agenda) and refocused on what was happening in the economy. That showed a bit of vision.

Unfortunately, Labour didn’t do the same in 2011. Perhaps our heads are a little too far in the sand.

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.

Young Fabians – the best gig in town

Let’s be honest, saying “sign up to the Young Fabians” next time you’re in the pub and most non-politicos would probably think you were talking about joining the mailing list of the latest indie band sensation.

The new membership drive at the Young Fabians reminds me that we need to do more to let people appreciate what a fantastic place the Young Fabians is. I really think that the Young Fabians is one of the most empowering and horizon-expanding organisations that young people, with a progressive interest in policy and the way the world works, could possibly join.

With a bit of initiative and get up and go, you can find yourself involved in policy thinking right at the top of the Labour party; you get access to one of the most interesting series of events in Westminster (and beyond); and of course get to read and contribute to the Young Fabian publications.

However, what I really enjoy about being involved in YFs is the people. Time after time, I find myself really impressed and inspired by the people I meet through the Young Fabians – people from all sorts of backgrounds with all sorts of different expertise, interests and perspectives. Being exposed to them has broadened my own mind and my own experiences.

I can assure you that if the Young Fabians were to pay for some of our members’ time at the rate that they would normally charge in their day jobs – be they researchers, market analysts, lobbyists, designers and online communicators, speech writers – suffice to say, the budget wouldn’t cover it.

However, what is priceless is not just the calibre of the members, but the diversity. Where else can you share ideas with teachers, trade unionists, bankers, entrepreneurs, officials, volunteers, international development specialists, doctors, lawyers, students, MP staffers, MPs! – all in one evening.

We are all inevitably products of our environment and the people we interact with. We’re richer because of the people who challenge us and inspire us, people who support us and mentor us. I‘ve found all of this through the Young Fabians.

So next time you’re in the pub, and someone asks you whether you’re talking about the latest indie band sensation – set them straight and tell ‘em loud and proud about who the Young Fabians are, and get them to join. We’re only as strong as our membership and it is up to our membership to make us stronger.

Check out our recruitment website for more information – http://bit.ly/jointheyfs

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Cold hard Israeli interests in the Middle East

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Young Fabian Partnerships Officer Nick Maxwell argues that Israel needs to realise that a change in strategy towards Palestine is in its own best interest.

The status of bi-lateral peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is somewhere between tired and comatose.

Part of the explanation is that Israeli moderates and enthusiasm for negotiations amongst the Israeli public have both been severely weakened. Following the Israeli Gaza pullout, a consensus view has hardened that withdrawing from occupied territory only increases attacks on Israel. Further, the stagnation has resulted from a belief that the Palestinian leadership has shown that it is not prepared, or not able, to accept even the most generous final offer from Israel. The failure of the Palestinians to respond positively to the 10 month settlement freeze imposed by the current government, at some political cost, reinforced the point.

Lack of confidence in negotiations, coupled with the fact that current security measures seem to be working for Israel (the wall is credited with bringing suicide attacks down by over 90%), has produced an atmosphere where maintaining the status quo can be seen as the best available and entirely acceptable option.

From the Palestinian point of view, a public consensus has also hardened against negotiations, or at least bi-lateral negotiations with Israel. The process of negotiations are felt to have achieved very little, but a worsening Palestinian position. Most critically, every year since the Oslo accords, more settlements have been built in the West Bank. In 1991, 90,000 settlers were in the West Bank, in 2011 there were almost 600,000. This is in direct contravention of the Oslo Accords and to international law governing behaviour in occupied territories.

Israeli hawks draw strength from terrorist attacks, but they also feed off a deep insecurity within the Jewish psyche. The ‘security first’ mentality is hardly surprising. Jewish history is littered with persecution, a minority under threat almost where-ever they settled – culminating in the Holocaust. The day after an Israeli state was declared, it was attacked from all sides by its neighbours.

The story of Israel is one of defiance and survival in the face of existential threats.

However, these are different times and we are entering a critical period. Over the long term, the response to security threats must always include more than containment – particularly when the containment strategy fuels a sense of injustice in the region and the wider world. Israel needs to grow out of a culture of fear and insecurity, and do it quickly.

The status quo should not be acceptable and is not sustainable. The Palestinians remain an occupied people – disenfranchised and disempowered, festering in high unemployment rates and the indignity of externally enforced obstructions to their daily lives.  This has real and long-term security implications for Israel.

With the Palestinian Statehood bid and the Arab Spring, Israel seems to stand on a cliff-edge with only a limited period to orient itself towards a safer and more secure future. This future requires a rejection of the status quo and a strategic shift toward encouraging positive conditions in the Palestinian territories, rather than simply containing negative conditions. In particular, it is important to appreciate three points about Israeli interest:

1) It is not in Israel’s interest to have a failed state on its doorsteps. Over 20% of Palestinian youth are unemployed. State services are generally weak. It is in Israel’s own interest to be doing all it can to promote economic growth and development in the Palestinian Authority (PA) area. Practically, Israel should at least start by stopping the brinkmanship over its threats to suspend payments (of the territory’s own tax yield) to the PA.

2) It is not in Israel’s interest to be hostile to the Arab Spring. Several senior Israelis, including Mark Regev Spokesperson to the Israeli Prime Minister, have voiced concern about the democratisation of the Arab world. It is not sustainable to oppose the cause of freedom and democracy in the Arab world. While it is true that, particularly in Egypt, relations are likely to deteriorate in the short term, a more effective response to the Arab Spring (than wishing it away) will be to demonstrate Israeli commitment to peace and withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. Security and stability in the region will be best served by a dynamic and active hearts and minds exercise across the region, starting with tangible progress for the Palestinians in the bid for statehood.

3) It is not in Israel’s interest for Fateh to fail in its bid for Palestinian statehood. In the words of a prominent Israeli negotiator we met, the current Fateh leadership is “as good as it gets”. The current leadership is committed to peaceful avenues, rather than violence; it respects international law; and is engaged in cross-Arab peace initiatives. But Fateh has a desperate need to show progress, in the peaceful strategy, for the Palestinian people. It has thrown all its political weight and credibility behind the UN bid for Statehood, which comes to a head this month. In its own interests, Israel should do everything it can to encourage the success of this diplomatic route, rather than risk its failure and risk a rejection of diplomacy (bi-lateral or multilateral) and play into Hamas’ hands.

During our meetings, I have heard personal stories, on both sides, of people whose children have been threatened, maimed and killed. The common response is one of resolve to be vigilant against the threat and make the perpetrator pay, never betraying their memory. The more inspirational responses are from people who have taken the same experience and promised to dedicate themselves to finding peace, promising never to betray their memory by encouraging more of the same violence and hatred.

Overall, a security focused consensus and a satisfaction with the status quo in current Israeli politics must be challenged. There is a pressing need to do better, in Israel’s own cold hard interests. There is a need to articulate a new vision of strategic advantage for Israel which sets out ambition and an active intent to improve relations with the Palestinians, and with the region.

Hearts and minds have been the missing components of Israeli military success since 1948.

It will take political leadership, and political creativity, but at this critical juncture when the moderates in the West Bank are threatened, as the Arab Spring starts to present new foreign policy implications, and when the alternative is only the promise of generation after generation of more fear and hatred – is there really a choice?

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• You can follow updates from our Middle East delegation via Twitter by searching for #yfmep. And find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here.
• You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.

Responding to the riots – Insights from Brixton

Tony Blair asked us to reject the idea that Britain is broken. However, the Young Fabians – never to accept any one view without question, debate and a few committee meetings - thought that further investigation was and is necessary. Certainly, there was blatant opportunist criminality in the youth riots and, likely, a small minority who operate ‘beyond the pale’ involved. But the scale, spread and nature of the unrest does seem to indicate something more; something wrong with our society. A very large number of young people have demonstrated a lack of connection to, or investment in, their communities and a separation from the norms of society. It would be wrong to be complacent about this challenge.

Of course, the issues can’t be looked at in isolation. The roots are in education, in the economy, in housing, in public service provision, and elsewhere. But just because something is complicated isn’t a justification for giving up on constructive solutions.

Over the last five months, Joani Reid has been leading the Young Fabian “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission to provide analysis of the broader problems hitting British youth.

As part of the effort to analyse the issues, last week, the Young Fabians teamed up with A4e to visit Brixton to try and better understand the skills and employment challenges in the area. Myself, Joel Mullan, Vincenzo Rampulla and Joani Reid all took part in the site visit and held a series of interviews at the Brixton A4e training centre.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis, but a short personal report from what felt like a very worthwhile visit – and something that the current Young Fabian Executive would like to repeat, with other partners and other areas.

Firstly – without comparing it to its competitors (because we didn’t visit any on this occasion) – I, for one, was very impressed by A4e as an outfit.

There was a huge amount of optimism and energy in the building. I suggested that a lack of jobs in the economy might be an insurmountable problem for the centre, but they went on to tell me about all the vacancy relationships they’d built up to secure job opportunities. For example, a recently secured relationship with WHSmith enabled them to link forthcoming major recruitment rounds with training programmes in local areas.

I was also impressed by A4e’s emphasis on making sure the people of an area benefitted from big investment projects. It was clear that they rejected the idea that high value added investment, like the Silicon Roundabout, are just opportunities for high skilled talent to move into the area, but advocated, with enough time, planning and upskilling, the opportunities for unemployed local people. This approach offers a stern challenge to those who are satisfied with mere trickle-down benefits for the local community from cleaning jobs and selling sandwiches.

At a broader level here are a five big insights for policy thinking that I took away from the interviews and meetings:

1. We need a tailored and sequenced approach to helping jobseekers.

People differ widely and so do their needs. In Brixton, the range was from job-hungry out of work professionals who had just been hit by the downturn, to those in need of skills training and with an appetite to learn, to those with much more severe health, drugs, drink, or housing problems. Particularly for those in at-risk categories, their issues need to be dealt with in the right order in order to be effective, and to reach sustainable and gainful employment as an end goal. One size doesn’t fit all. We shouldn’t talk as if it does.

2. Business, educators and jobseekers shouldn’t operate in isolation.

Our current general modus operandi – of employers wandering blindly into skills shortages, trainers training without a clear view of an end goal, and jobseekers floundering in the middle – indicates some room for improvement. It may make more sense to encourage as much communication and planning between: what businesses need, which they often know many months in advance of the time; what the educators can provide; and the aspirations and development-reach of the jobseeker. The free market is a brutally efficient model of clearing, but it is not perfection. There is value in thinking about the limits of a wage/price solution. Greater understanding and planning across the silos can help.

3. Culture matters and for-profit shouldn’t be a dirty word.

Organisational culture is of the utmost significance. It struck me very telling that A4e refer jobseekers as ‘customers’.

Public service in general should be very far removed from a tick-box process of ‘recipients’, and be, as far as possible, about enabling committed and motivated individuals to have a personal stake in the experience of public service ‘customers’. This is not to bash state provision, just a nudge to try and dislodge any automated revulsion to the concept of for-profit public service. At the very least, we should try and incorporate the motivation and innovation that ‘for-profit’ can, sometimes, demonstrate into all aspects of public service.

4. We should do everything we can to make work pay.

In interviews with ‘customers’, it was clear that there was an entrenched view out there that welfare can pay more than work can. We need to tread carefully here, maintaining the protection for the vulnerable, for mothers and for the down-and-out. But we must do all we can to make employment attractive. While it feels like there is some way to go on this challenging agenda, it is should be at the forefront of policy makers minds. Part of the solution must lie with a relentless effort to raise aspirations in all communities, especially the most deprived.

This is no easy feat.

5. We need bigger thinking on internships.

In an interview with a highly educated jobseeker with two degrees and ambitions in the fashion industry, who had been out of work for over a year, it struck that he was being led on a path that was corrosive to his sense of purpose and confidence, as well as being costly to the economy. His university careers advice centred on the importance of getting experience and an internship to make it in his career of choice. Many readers in the political world will, no doubt, be familiar with this advice. He was financial-capital poor, but human-capital rich. If he went on an internship, he claimed he would lose his housing benefit and employment benefit; a non-option without family support in London. If he took a minimum wage job, the option presented to him by the jobseeker system, he saw only the prospect of working very long hours just to keep his head above water, without any surplus income to save.

The unsympathetic might say he should take whatever job is coming, and be grateful. But surely it makes no sense to consign those who have benefitted from a high level of education to the near poverty trap of minimum wage jobs – not from the perspective of jobseekers self-worth, nor when trying to enable the greatest possible constructive contributions to society, nor when trying to make good on the state’s investment in education, and nor in our effort to encourage the flourishing of high value added employment in the UK.

A potential solution might be (with lots of weaknesses no-doubt, but also some merit): a one-shot universal jobseekers credit for, let’s say, a 6-month unpaid internship? Bolstering skills development, entrenching high-value added jobs and making the UK a more attractive place to locate business, all the while costing the state less (bearing in mind how long this category might otherwise be on welfare). Accepting internship exists rather than trying to wish them away, this could level the playing field for entry to high-skilled professions and be a significant boost for businesses.

‘One Big Chance’ internships – you heard it here first.

Policy Commissions and Young Fabian next steps: everyone should get involved

Joani and Joel are taking forward the thinking in the “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission. The next Anticipations edition will also have a heavy focus on the Squeezed Youth theme.

Tony Blair may be right about the need to focus on the hard to reach dysfunctional families. Or perhaps we do have a broken society and there are big ideas needed to address a lack of hope or prospects in communities up and down the country, hitting the young hardest.

Regardless, if you want to contribute to the thinking and the debate, there are plenty of opportunities with the Young Fabians. Stay tuned for information about a debate on what to learn from the riots.

Please get in touch if you would like to be involved, at any level.

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians

China-EU year of youth: the promise of new foreign policy

On Friday 6 May, as part of the EU-China Year of Youth, the Young Fabians and youth groups from other parties were invited to contribute to a roundtable looking issues from educational links to climate change. Below is a summary of my introductory remarks to the roundtable, speaking about “China and Foreign Policy”

The promise of new foreign policy

There is a promise for a new type of foreign policy, driven by an unprecedented level of shared interests between nations.

The ideal is that UK foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability; and that Chinese foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability.

Across the political spectrum in the UK, there is consensus that we want the promise to prevail.

The financial crisis and the global downturn both demonstrated the extent to which economies, particularly the world’s leading economies are interlinked and interdependent. We are exposed to similar shocks and risks, and preventative action to contain economic risks requires cooperation. We no longer have distinct national interests.

It is important at the outset to recognise China’s achievements. Particularly in terms of poverty alleviation, China’s record of raising urban annual per capita income nine-fold over two decades is unprecedented in human history and raised millions from a life of suffering and squalor.

On the left, we are instinctively international and support the equal treatment and opportunity of human beings. China’s increasing prosperity is the success story of the century for humanity – and long may it continue. There is also much to welcome in the Ambassador’s remarks and the latest five-year economic plan on the environment and social equity.

However, both the EU and China, and indeed other players, need to be vigilant against clear risks to this happy co-existence and shared prosperity. There are three risks that I would like to talk about.

Resources and the return of Malthus

The world is resource constrained. In the UK we sometimes imagine that the globalisation of trade is unstoppable. Resource scarcity in oil, in commodities, in food, and in water – compounded by climate change – has already surfaced and put pressure on our global economic system and free trade. The pressure could mount to encourage countries to break economic links and return to a mercantilist approach to ownership of resources in the world.

State-back Chinese operations focus on securing resources, which can look highly mercantilist, and any draw back from free and open access to resources in a system of global trade will threaten our happy co-existence and the promise of new foreign policy.

The extraordinary growth in world population, expected to reach above 9bn by 2040, will put enormous pressure on the sustainability of our way of life. We should be in no doubt that nations will have to work very very hard not to come into conflict over resources.

China can play its part in building trust and confidence by encouraging transparency in its state backed businesses operating in extractive resources and should work to uphold open economic systems at all times.

Buyout fear

$1 trillion to $2 trillion of Chinese investment is expected to be on the markets by 2020.

We saw with Cadbury how emotive buy-outs can be.

Perceptions that Chinese buyouts are state-backed, unfair and – at worst – compromise on national security could undermine the promise of new foreign and economic policy.

In Europe, we need prepare the ground for Chinese investment in Europe, avoiding protectionism and buyout fear, and embracing new ways of doing business, innovation and investment in our communities.

Again from the Chinese side, there needs to be more effort put into transparency of Chinese companies.

On security, if China ceased to invest so heavily in cyber-military capabilities, it might allay fears over the implications of allowing investment and growth of Chinese high-tech companies in OECD nations. Stop the security hawks playing their games, which undermine Chinese high tech industries – particularly in relation to their Indian counterparts.

Legitimacy, peace and trust

China is not a democracy and its leadership relies on success for legitimacy. When economic success runs dry, history has shown us that authoritarian nations turn to jingoism and militarism to underpin their authority.

The growth of democracy in China will help avoid that terrible fate underpin the promise of cooperative growth and shared prosperity.

Everything should be done to better connect young British leaders in business, politics and civic society to their peers in China to help build understanding and dialogue between the two countries, and help avoid a slip from peaceful development.

A promising century

So it is a promising century for human cooperation, for prosperity – but we shouldn’t be ignorant of the threats to that promise. I think a lot of the choice in which way we will go in this century rests on Chinese foreign policy.

We have heard a lot that we can support from the Ambassador today, and we look to working with you, in the small way that we can, to help achieve the promise of a shared, prosperous and harmonious future.

Nick Maxwell is Fundraising and Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.

Protected or pilfered? What the CSR really means for R&D and science in the UK

On Wednesday 27 October, the Young Fabians Technology and Society Network held its post Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) debate, “Protected or pilfered? What the CSR really means for R&D and science in the UK”.

The week after the CSR, Pamela Nash MP chaired a lively and interactive debate between Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering; John Unsworth, Chair of Scientists for Labour; Professor Evan Parker, Department of Physics at the University of Warwick; Stephen Gruneberg, Chair of Labour Finance and Industry Group, and the Young Fabian attendees.

The panel agreed that the CSR wasn’t as bad as some had feared, but there was still a cloud of uncertainty over research council budgets, capital expenditure, R&D tax credits, Departmental spending like the MoD and DEFRA and the fate of the Technology Strategy Board and the RDAs – all of which contribute significantly to research funding and support the UK’s global leadership position in science and R&D. Throw into the mix that a frozen budget over four years could fall victim to inflation, and the picture for the future of science and research in the UK looks fragile and uncertain.

However, far from groaning about the shrinking pie, our panel took on quite an upbeat debate about the kind of society and the kind of economy we should be striving for. Searching for ‘opportunity from adversity’, Professor Evan Parker talked about the need to think again about the balance between Higher Education and vocational education; Stephen Gruneberg talked about the need for a compelling strategy for growth and how research industry can support that; John Unsworth called for us to recognise the competitive threat posed by India and China and for the EU to become more coordinated about science and commercialising research; and Imran Khan asked for a new spirit of aspiration for science and to become scientists, from primary school right through the education system.

Newly elected Young Fabian Executive member, Claire French summarises the debate in more detail on Left Foot Forward.

As a Network, we are pleased to be working alongside Campaign for Science and Engineering, Scientists for Labour and Labour Finance and Industry Group to highlight these important issues.

If you would like to be more involved in the work of the Technology and Society Network, please join the Network ning community and share your ideas.

Nick Maxwell, Young Fabians Networks Officer

Fair’s fair on the CSR

At PMQs this week, Ed set out an elegant line of attack – a reasonable and constructive tone coupled with a relentless focused on fairness.

Today we’ve seen the Coalition trying to bounce back from PMQs and define their approach to fairness. Clegg’s view today – fairness revolves around side-programmes, on the edge of the main deficit reduction effort, that aim to promote social mobility such as the ‘fairness premium’. Make no mistake, the struggle to define fairness will be a key battle ground around the CSR.

Ed is committed to ‘having a credible alternative plan’ by the time of the CSR – which is quite a tall order for a new Shadow Cabinet.  So can Ed meet this commitment and, at the same time, expose the Coalition on fairness?

The Economist recently pointed out how hazy ‘fairness’ is as a political concept. For an opposition, that means there will almost always be a way to show that Cameron is “failing on fairness”.

There is a huge opportunity to own the debate, but the scene setting must be right. In the CSR debates, Ed should emphasise three key points:

The government has taken a reckless gamble with the economy: Ed should hammer this point in. The Coalition Government had a choice. It could have used any combination of spending cuts, tax rises and growth promotion to get out of the deficit – this government has embarked on a very risky, ideologically driven strategy of relying on spending cuts. It is betting the house on an ideological hope, and threatening to throw this country back into recession which could leave us in either an Irish-model deep downturn or a Japanese-style decade of stagflation.

Labour always had a credible alternative plan to reduce the deficit: The Alistair Darling strategy was sound – Half the speed, and twice the emphasis on growth.

Labour can’t stop the Coalition gambling with the nation’s economy, jobs and prosperity … : While we disagree on the speed of the cuts and we think the Coalition’s approach is irresponsible and misguided, we can’t do anything to change the Coalition’s strategy. We hope that the gamble doesn’t result in a double-dip recession and leave us with the lasting economic and social damage that we fear it might.

Responding to the inevitable call from Cameron that “Labour got us into this mess and doesn’t have a plan for getting us out”, this approach highlights that there has always been an alternative plan, but that Conservatives took a different route and only they will be to blame for the “mess” of the future that they created. And, it leaves Ed with options.

From that position, Ed should forget trying to have a detailed alternative to every cut and, instead, lead the debate by holding Cameron to account on fairness. As the coalition sets out the deepest cuts to public spending in modern history, Labour, as a responsible opposition, should hold Cameron personally responsible for whether the cuts meet the “tests of fairness”. I propose three such tests,

“Do the cuts…

• Protect the vulnerable: Do the cuts disproportionately affect the poor, minorities, women and families?
• Promote jobs for the future: Are we doing everything we can to protect jobs, the roots of long-term economic growth and the UK’s global leadership in areas like science and research, so that a generation of young people aren’t deprived of opportunity of decent work because of this Government’s decisions?
• Provide value for taxpayers, (rather than pander to right-wing ideology): Are the cuts genuinely cost-saving, or are they ideological reforms which are actually costing the public sector more? (like abolishing the Audit Commission, or other quangos)

By setting out the principles by which Ed will hold Cameron to, time and time again, Labour can frame and own the debate about fairness. The stats and the research are likely to show how the Coalition is failing on all three. Through this approach, Ed can use the tests of fairness to build on his reasonable and constructive tone to highlight just how economically damaging, brutal and regressive this really Coalition is.

It makes business sense and it’s socially just, why the City can’t get it together on gender balance in the boardroom??

On Wednesday 22 September, in the heart of the City at the London Stock Exchange, the Young Fabian Womens’ and Future of Finance Networks hosted an expert panel debate entitled “Balance in the boardroom: How to get more women leaders in the City?”.

Special video highlights of the debate… link here

Women only represent 5% of executive directors from the 600 companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange, according to recent research by recruitment firm Egon Zehnder. With the passage of landmark legislation in the US aiming to increase female membership on corporate boards and the establishment of the Lord Davies inquiry into female representation in Britain’s boardrooms, the Young Fabians Future of Finance Network brought together an expert panel for lively interactive debate.

Chaired by Rachel Reeves MP, former Bank of England Economist and member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, panellists Clare Dobie, Immediate Past President of the Women’s City Network and witness for the Treasury Committee’s ‘Women in the City’ inquiry; Trupti Patel, Associate at Social Finance; Andrew Roscoe, London Director of Egon Zehnder International; and Cathrine Seierstad, Researcher at the Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity in Queen Mary University, all set out their views on the issues before engaging in discussion with the audience.

All the panellists agreed that female participation at the top of the financial services sector in the UK was too low, both in comparison to other sectors in the UK and in comparison to the rest of Europe. All the panellists also agreed that there were important benefits for business and the economy from having more female talent on corporate boards. Andrew Roscoe pointed to research carried out by his search firm, Egon Zehnder International, which indicated that corporate boards that are more diverse make better decisions.

So, if female talent offered so many advantages to business, why are these companies in the financial services sector missing out on the competitive advantage of having women on the board?

The panel agreed that a principal problem is that a lot of recruitment is driven by the fact that people “recruit in their own image” and British business and the financial services sector is dominated by men – and men of a particular social ilk at that.

The issues are certainly complex and intertwined. Trupti pointed to characteristics of the corporate workplace that didn’t reward typical female skills types of working. Andrew highlighted his firm’s research that showed that networking and proclaiming one’s own success were strongly associated with success, however in female focus groups these qualities were not seen as desirable. Trupti thought that women generally needed support to improve the way they sell themselves internally and earn recognition for their work, and that career networks often helped women acquire these skills and gain the necessary confidence.

Parental leave was also an important part of the picture. Businesses see maternity leave as a financial risk. The Icelandic model, where parental leave is divided between men and women and the business risk is equal, was seen as an example for the UK.

On aspiration, the panel felt that the City should do more to raise awareness of job opportunities in the city and seeking to influence the careers advice or family advice that is so influential to people’s career decisions. There should also be better case studies of positive examples of women at the top of business.

Cathrine discussed the Norwegian experience of legislation requiring corporate boards to meet minimum gender quotas of 40%. The justification for positive discrimination was based on the need for a wider distribution of power, but also on an economic argument, that companies need to use the entire wealth of talent available in society to be competitive and that diversity has a positive impact of the board and the bottom line of company performance.

The panel agreed that there has to be a change in the culture at the very top for there to be real substantive change in the long-term over the sector and in society. Panellists and attendees alike agreed that encouraging such social and cultural change – which makes economic sense as well as being socially just – was precisely what the Fabian Society was for.

This event was kindly sponsored by the London Stock Exchange and Egon Zehnder International.

The Young Fabian Future of Finance Network was launched by Lord Drayson in March 2010 with the aim of better connecting socially-minded individuals from finance and the City of London with progressive politics. The Network provides an empowering opportunity for progressives, of all shades, from the front edge of industry and research to contribute their expertise to the progressive effort to respond to global policy challenges. Network membership is not limited to Young Fabian members, but open to all individuals who identify as socially-minded progressives.

For the full event report, please visit the Young Fabian Future of Finance Network Site: http://youngfabians-networks-fof.ning.com

Young Fabians Networks go live…

On Thursday last week, we launched our Fabians ‘Technology and Society’ and ‘Future of Finance’ Networks at a reception in the heart of the City of London.

We were delighted that so many young financiers, scientists and academics – many of whom had not been involved in the work of the Young Fabians before – packed the room to hear our guest speakers spell out their visions for the potential role the Networks could play.

Lord Drayson, Minister for Science and Innovation, spoke about the power of politics and the opportunity for young people with expertise and enthusiasm to make a difference in politics. On science, technology and finance, Lord Drayson talked about the pride he had in the UK’s leadership role and called on young people in those sectors to put their expertise forward to help government continue to support jobs and investment for the future.

Rachel Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West and former Bank of England Economist, called on the Networks to bring fresh energy to debates around financial transaction taxes, to principled banking and to end Casino banking. Huw Evans, ABI Director of Communications, talked about the value of a more sophisticated understanding of financial services on the left and set out the role of insurance in the UK economy. He saw the Networks helping in the effort to respond positively and effectively to public concerns about the financial industry, with ideas and actions.

Our aim in hosting the Networks is to provide a forum for socially minded professionals to meet and discuss ideas and to bring sector expertise to progressive debates. Our speakers underlined that there was great value in hosting the Network and that now was the time when ideas and insights would have real influence.

But the hard work starts now. People have noticed the Networks exist and expectations are high. Now we need to see what they can deliver. If you’re interested in joining either the Future of Finance or the Technology and Society Network – it’s simple – just visit the website and join up. You don’t have to be a Young Fabian member to take part in the Networks.  If you want to take a more active role, come to the steering group meetings and put your ideas for the Network into action.

To see a taster of the discussion the Networks are hosting, see Chris Calland’s response to the Chancellor’s debate on the Future of Finance Network or see what Chris Jones had to say about the launch event.

Thanks for all the hard work that went into the launch event and I look forward to seeing what you all have to say on the Networks.

Nick Maxwell

Fabianism in bed with offshore financial centres?

Has the Young Fabians lost its marbles? Their new ‘Networks’ projects launch event is sponsored by none other than Jersey Finance, a representative body for financial services in the island of Jersey. An outrage? An abandonment of the socialist fraternity on the very day that the Treasury is briefing that the Chancellor will use the Budget to double the maximum penalty for offshore tax evaders?

Far from it. On Thursday, in the heart of the City of London, the Young Fabians are launching two new innovative projects – the ‘Future of Finance’ and the ‘Technology and Society’ Networks. These networks, collectively, aim to bring young people and young leaders from the worlds of finance, technology, science and engineering together with progressive politics in order to help bring insight, imagination and energy to the broader progressive fight and to respond to our shared economic, social and environmental challenges.

These networks, in the true spirit of Fabianism, are open access and inclusive. They are founded on the belief that there are swathes of socially minded people working at the front edge of finance, research, academia, science and technology who have so much to offer the progressive movement, but perhaps have struggled to find a home in the Left. The networks aim to provide a forum that allows people to combine professional expertise with a social conscience, and – in the process – help the progressive movement become more sophisticated, more aware and more responsive to the realities of the marketplace and the broader environment.

Our inclusivity is our strength. Greater nuanced understanding of a complicated world and dialogue with all actors maybe held in horror and disgust by the revolutionaries, but they are the hallmarks of Fabian gradualism and the foundation of effective real reform towards social and progressive ends.

That’s why we’re delighted that Jersey Finance, alongside the TUC and Prospect Magazine, are supporting the launch of the Young Fabian Networks and that’s we are so keen to embrace those who support our ends, regardless of their place of work. Both Young Fabians members and progressives who aren’t members are very welcome at the launch event and in the Networks themselves. If you’re interested, please click through and RSVP.